Ever thought the world has gone mad, what is presented as news is just propaganda generated to divert attention from the complete failure of the elites to deal with problems; modern education dumbs down rather than enlightens, science academics behave more like a medieval priesthood than dedicated seekers of knowledge and understanding, and the media would rather report celebrity gossip than the drift towards global conflict.
You'd be right, it's all bollocks my dears, as we intend to show.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be Bollocks

All branches of the Sciences are today, plagued by corruption, self interest and bullying. Yet, more often than
not, attempts to create awareness about scientific fraud — an issue that few journalists have been willing to address — are met with the response, “Well, is it peer-reviewed?”
We know of course that what passes for the peer review process is in fact 'pal' review, cronyism has gone in in the academic world for a long time. A certain amount is tolerable of course, where things really started to run out of control was when research institutions started to get more money from corporate sources than from private donations, bursaries and philanthropic foundations. As everybody who has worked in a corporate business environment is aware, "there's no such thing as a free lunch."

**************

Although good science should always be
reviewed, using this label as a form of credibility can be dangerous,
causing people to dismiss new information and research instantaneously
if it doesn’t have it, particularly when that information counters
long-held beliefs ingrained into human consciousness via mass marketing,
education, and more.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming
increasingly apparent that we are being lied to about the products and
medicines we use on a daily basis.

If you’re one who commonly points to the
“peer-reviewed” label, then you should know that there are
many researchers and insiders who have been creating awareness about the
problem with this label for years.

Who Says So? And From What Fields?

Climate Science

Many people have spoken up against the
corporatization and politicization of science. For example, Professor
Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist and former director of the
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has voiced his concern
that some scientists are, according to an interview given to the Daily Mail,
“mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” He
claims that there are multiple indicators for how “science is gradually
being influenced by political views.” (source)

Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British
physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London,
co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and
former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has also spoken up
about the politicization of climate science. (source)

The
Australian prime minister’s chief business advisor has done the same,
and so have other politicians, like Senator James Inhofe, chairman of
the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. You can read
more about that story here.

Unfortunately, the mainstream vilifies such people, and to great effect.

Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen,
one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of
“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report
on climate change. He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC
United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the
senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate
science and the manipulation of data — something that plagues all fields
of science today.

“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be False

Who Says So? And From What Fields?

Climate Science

Many people have spoken up against the
corporatization and politicization of science. For example, Professor
Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist and former director of the
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has voiced his concern
that some scientists are, according to an interview given to the Daily Mail,
“mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” He
claims that there are multiple indicators for how “science is gradually
being influenced by political views.” (source)

Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British
physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London,
co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and
former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has also spoken up
about the politicization of climate science. (source)

The Australian prime minister’s chief
business advisor has done the same, and so have other politicians, like
Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. You can read more about that story here.

Unfortunately, the mainstream vilifies such people, and to great effect.

Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen,
one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of
“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report
on climate change. He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC
United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the
senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate
science and the manipulation of data — something that plagues all fields
of science today.

Medical Science/Health Science/Food

In the case of medicine, a lot of
information has emerged showing just how much corruption really goes on.
The Editors-in-Chiefs of several major medical journals have been quite
blunt, with perhaps one of the best examples coming from Dr. Richard
Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of TheLancet, who says, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source)

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), also considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, alongside The Lancet, has said that “it
is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research
that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or
authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion,
which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor
of The New England Journal of Medicine.”(source)

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” which subsequently became the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS). (source)

Here is another great quote:

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical
industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in
terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this
country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal (source)

As you can see, this has been a problem for quite some time.

****

GMOs

One of the best examples of political
influence over scientific publication comes from an
episode involving Genetically Modified Maize. Monsanto published a study
a few years ago which purported to demonstrate the effects of GMO maize
on rats over a 90 day period. They reported no ill effects on the
rodents from this diet. Given the fact that there are no long term
studies examining the health risks associated with GMOs, independent
researchers then decided to conduct the same study, with one difference:
Their study lasted over a year rather than a mere three months.
Researchers found instances of severe
liver and kidney damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, alongside
the development of large tumours and mortality among the treatment
groups. The study was published in November of 2012, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology,
and then instantly retracted. After hundreds of scientists condemned
the retraction, the U.S. did not publish it. The study was then
re-published in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals (in Europe
last year [2014]), like Environmental Sciences Europe. This is why it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many countries in Europe have banned the growing of genetically modified crops. Many also have bans and/or severe restrictions on importing GM products, citing health and environmental concerns.

This fact was also made clear by WikiLeaks documents:

Resistance to the advent of genetically modified foods
has been pronounced across Europe. The continent features some of the
strictest regulations governing the use and cultivation of GMO products,
and public skepticism about biotech goods is quite high – a fact not
lost on American diplomats. In a lengthy report dating from late 2007 , a
cable issued by the State Department outlined its “Biotechnology
Outreach Strategy, ‘which, among other things, recognized the European
Union’s ‘negative views on biology’ and committed as a national priority
to limiting them (O7STATE160639).

Initial attention paid to the State
Department’s part in pushing industrial manufactures on its allies
obscured the even bigger role it played in assuring a place for
genetically modified agricultural products (GMOs) in a region that
largely wanted nothing to do with them. The American campaign promoting
biotech products was a worldwide effort. In all, some 1,000 documents
from the Cablegate cache address this effort, a significant number of
which originate in Europe. U.S. diplomats on the continent gave
considerable attention to insuring the interests of American biotech
firms in Europe – Whether through “education” programs,
government lobbying, or outright coercion – as well as stripping down
European Union regulations designed to act as a bugger against them.
Available cables published by WikiLeaks suggest that the United States
invests considerable time, effort, and expense in its operations on
behalf of the American biotech firms.

In 1996, Steven M. Druker, being a
public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For
Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically
engineered foods.

He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit that provides details of his experience. He has also released the documents on his website, showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws in the FDA’s policy.

There are a number of examples to choose
from here, but antidepressants make the top of the list. Irving Kirsch,
a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, published a study
pointing out how “analyses of the published data and the
unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most
(if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect.” (source)

Another study published in the British Medical Journal by
researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that
pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding
the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from
70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine
reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious
harm in clinical study reports went unreported.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said: “We
found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon
request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested
them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation
would be if we had the complete data.” (source)

Another co-author of the study, Dr.
Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s
foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate
analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the
side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that “it’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.” He has published many papersarguing that
our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking
into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he
is correct.

Below is a brief video of him elaborating on this problem:

Vaccines

Vaccines are getting more attention now than ever before. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP), recently announced a $100,000
challenge aimed at putting an end to the inclusion of mercury, a
neurotoxin that is 100 times more poisonous than lead, in vaccines
administered in the U.S and globally.

It’s offered to anybody,
including journalists and scientists, who can provide a study showing
that it is safe to inject mercury into babies. This will be difficult,
as hundreds of studies (that were also present at the press conference
in print form) show it is absolutely unsafe, and can
significantly increase the risk of developing neurodegenerative
disorders.

Multiple cases of vaccine fraud have
been uncovered, but this is something you might not know given the fact
that the mainstream media completely ignores these facts, and vaccines
are heavily marketed.

For example, Lucija Tomljenovic, who
has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s
Faculty of Medicine, as well as a medical investigator, uncovered
documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies,
and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with
vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. (source)

But perhaps one of the biggest
revelations in medical history, also unfortunately ignored by mainstream
media, came only a couple of years ago and is still making noise, as it
should.

Dr. William Thompson, a longtime senior
CDC scientist, published some of the most commonly cited pro-vaccine
studies, which showed that there was absolutely no link between the MMR
vaccine and autism (Thompson, et al. 2007,Price, et al. 2010, Destefano, et al. 2004). However, Dr. Thompsonrecently admitted that it was “the lowest point” in his career when he “went along with that paper.” He went on to say that he and the other authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is “completely ashamed” of what he did. He was “complicit and went along with this,” and regrets that he has “been a part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)

A study with revised information and no
data omitted was published by Dr. Brian Hooker (a contact of Dr.
Thompson) in the peer reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration, and
it found a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys
receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study has since
been retracted, around the same time this controversy arose.

You can read the full study here, although, unsurprisingly, it has since been retracted.

Thompson’s attorneys, Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. and Bryan Smith of Morgan & Morgan, also released a statement
from Dr. Thompson, which mentioned Hooker: “I
have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months
regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and
neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share
his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be
transparent.” (source)

he had to invoke whistleblower
protection and turned extensive agency files over to Congress. He said
that, for the past decade, his superiors have pressured him and his
fellow scientists to lie and manipulate data to conceal a causal link
between vaccines and brain injuries, including autism.

Final Thoughts

As you can see, scientific fraud is a
big problem across the board, and this article has only provided a few
examples. The problem is not just with GMOs and vaccines — it affects
cosmetics, food, cleaning supplies, and so much more. How have so many
products, which cause so much harm, been approved by the agencies that
are tasked to protect us?

There are so many books on this topic,
but they don’t get the attention they deserve, since the major
mainstream media shareholders are identical to those of the entire
health industry. Why would they bash their own products on their own
national television networks?

The power of corporate America has taken
over almost every aspect of our lives. If you’re wondering what we can
do about it, well, I believe the first step is awareness. There is still
a plethora of information that the general public is completely unaware
of, but if we backtrack to a decade ago, information that used to be
considered a conspiracy is now simply fact. A great example is the
corporate takeover of science, as discussed in this article, but another
one could be the Snowden Leaks on mass surveillance, or 9/11. Studies
are now being published by physicists and engineers regarding that
event.

Awareness makes it harder for the elite
to manipulate us. Once we become aware of something, we can stop it. For
example, look at Genetically Modified Foods and the pesticides that go
with them. As soon as the masses became aware of their dangers, they
began to change their shopping habits. Now, most countries around the
world have completely banned these foods.

It’s difficult to accept that there are
unseen powers, motivated by their own greed and lust for power, that are
doing us harm disguised as good. It is only when we become aware of how
we are being harmed and change our shopping habits — hurting their
bottom line — that they change their tactics. On the other hand, it’s
encouraging to know that once we do come together for a common goal,
anything can be accomplished, and we actually do have the potential and
power to change our world.